Forecast

Children don't pick terrorists

In a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, Thane Rosenbaum argued that civilians who support a government should be held culpable for what their government does — culpable even unto death.

I disagree, and have since I was at least 14 years old. My feelings about this come from being a voracious newspaper reader as a child. I am not a psychologist, but I find certain things I read stick with me in ways that others do not. They have an immediacy and impact that lasts.

In 1979, when I was 14, I remember opening up the newspaper one April day and reading that members of the Palestinian Liberation Front had attacked an apartment building in Israel. They entered (if that is the word to describe how they entered) the apartment of the Haran family. The mother was able to hide with the family's 2-year-old daughter, but the attackers seized the father and another daughter, who was 4. In trying to quiet her daughter, the mother accidentally suffocated the 2-year-old.

When the group got to the nearby beach, Israeli forces attacked them. The 16-year-old Palestinian leader shot the father in the head, then killed 4-year-old Einat Haran by smashing her head in with the butt of his gun.

As a teenager reading this shocking account, my gut reaction was that killing a 4-year-old on purpose was wrong. It is bad enough when civilians die by accident, but to take a child and crush her head in because of whatever sins might have been committed by the leaders of that child's country was just wrong — absolutely wrong.

Samir Kuntar, the man who did this, was captured by the Israelis and, as I subsequently learned, later released in one of Israel's many prisoner exchanges. Thane Rosenbaum's argument that embracing the politics of our leaders should make us valid targets could be used to justify Samir Kuntar's actions. This same logic has been used repeatedly by Al Qaeda, Hamas and many other terrorist organizations. If the argument is wrong for them to use then why should anyone be allowed to use it?

More Information

Victor Asal is director of the Center for Policy Research and co-director of the Project on Violent Conflict at Rockefeller College of Public Affairs & Policy, University at Albany.

There is strong evidence that Israel is trying to avoid collateral damage to civilians in the latest Gaza war. However, like all who fight wars in urban areas, Israel is failing in this.

The fact that armies try to avoid such casualties is important, not just for propaganda purposes or military effectiveness, but because trying not to kill civilians is the right thing to do.

In his WSJ editorial, Rosenbaum argues differently, suggesting that if you elect terrorists as leaders you are in essence embracing terrorism and thus can be seen as legitimate targets.

One can argue the validity of this concept for people who voted. I disagree with this premise as well, but the basic argument is deeply flawed in a much more fundamental way. When one starts targeting civilians on purpose, one starts to kill children — and children don't vote.

If we accept Rosenbaum's argument, we hold every citizen responsible for every act committed by their leaders.

As a citizen, that is a responsibility I truly do not want and should not have placed on my shoulders. If we accept Rosenbaum's view that civilians become terrorists for supporting terrorism, we accept the intentional targeting of children for death.

It's been more than 30 years since I read the Haran family's tragic story, but with the image of a smiling Einat still clear in my mind's eye, I think that is an unacceptable argument to make.